Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J04n

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

J04n

Final (38/29/13); Closed by Rlevse at 01:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

J04n (talk · contribs) – J04n creates content and improves articles. He was instrumental in bringing the Black Sabbath article up to good article status and has shown dedication to many other music-related articles as well. He has created several articles, adding sources and pictures where appropriate. He is also one of the most prolific contributors at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which is a time-consuming janitorial project, similar to many admin tasks.

J04n is an excellent communicator and collaborator. He is willing to change his mind, tells people when he appreciates their edits, and explains his reversions (more). He apologizes when he makes mistakes, then fixes them. All around, he is open to giving and receiving constructive criticism. He is involved in several music-related WikiProjects and is one of the most vocal contributors at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links.

J04n is not here to put a trophy on his shelf. He sounded surprised that I'd want to nominate him, and hasn't shown any ambition to become an administrator in the past (it's been suggested). J04n has been at Wikipedia for nine months of his 40-odd years, and he has over 35000 edits. Most of them are minor mainspace edits, but they are all geared towards building the encyclopedia, and I think he would be even more effective in working towards that goal as an administrator. I am confident that he would use the tools only when and where he was sure of the merits. I offer him up for your consideration. Dekimasuよ! 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. J04n(talk page) 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: The first thing that I would like to look at is Special:UnwatchedPages. I take pride in maintaining the level of quality of the pages on my watchlist and would like to see what pages aren't being watched so, if I have a level of comfort in the topic, I could add some to my list.

As is obvious by my contributions I am very active disambiguating links, on occasion I run into one that is fully protected, I suppose if I were an admin, I would disambiguate those. I would like to get more comfortable with the administrative tools before I decide on anything else that I would like to tackle.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I believe that my contributions to Black Sabbath significantly helped it to become a WP:GA, I greatly improved Dio (band). I do a lot of little things that improve the overall quality of Wikipedia; ensuring proper capitalization, proper formatting of references, and adherence to policies. My open mindedness is evident at Talk:Dio (band)#Dio or Dio (band); my opinion was changed based on a legitimate argument, despite the fact that the page I was more interested in (dealing with the band) had its name changes as a result.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: The closest thing to a conflict involved a particular editor continuously using WP:OR to populate the Voice Type in the Template:Infobox Musical artist. I started the following discussion about it and summarized the conclusion on the talk pages of the articles and then reverted them. The issue continued and I added this to his talk page, which received no comment. I now revert, with explanation, these additions to the pages that I regularly edit, but don't go out of my way to find others that he adds these to. In general I drop a line on someone's talk page if I believe conflict will arise.

Additional optional questions from Dylan620

4. What is the difference between a block and a ban? Please explain in your own words.

A: I have to admit that I just read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK because I did not know that a difference existed. To answer the question; a block prevents an editor from editing anything in Wikipedia and a ban prohibits editing some specific part or parts of Wikipedia.

I would ask those with concerns about this answer to review my comments responding to one of the opposes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Abce2

5.What do you know about conflicts and how to settle them?

A: Conflict is when two or more parties have a difference of opinion. For the purpose of this discussion I will assume that two editors are interpreting policy differently or info from one policy contradicts info from another policy (i.e. both editors have a legitimate argument). If the conflict involves a specific article it should be discussed on the talk page, or if broader in nature at the appropriate project page. Hopefully consensus can then be reached, if not a compromise, or even a clarification of policy.

Questions from ArcAngel

6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: When editors become disruptive to make their point.

• I think that it is interesting that several folks are opposing me based on this answer as it came directly from WP:CDB

7. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?

A: Protecting Wikipedia should be the most important function of an admin. Contentious material about living people and copyrighted material on Wikipedia can damage the whole project and must be removed. Blocking of repeat offenders is the responsibility of the admin, so considering this Blocking policy would be the most important.

8. What contributions are you least proud of, and in what way may they (in your opinion) have affected your judgement?

A: Early on I would use whatever references I could find, blogs and fansites included, if it was on the net it was a legit reference. This obviously led to me including lesser information on pages.

9. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?

A: I didn't know that it existed until right now so this is my initial reaction: Wikipedia belongs to everyone. To be made an admin one must prove to the community that they are trustworthy and understand the scope and rules of the project (as evidenced by having to go through this process). If the community then feels that the admin's action go against the scope and rules they should no longer be an admin.

AOR has no teeth, it is voluntary, you can remove yourself or even change the conditions of recall, so my main thought is that it should either be compulsory or removed. I myself love feedback, my life outside of Wikipedia is all about giving and receiving feedback, so I could see myself participating.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

10. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I'll start with do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources?: I can think of no examples of this so I will say no, if the reliable sources are recognized as reliable sources their recognition of the topic makes it notable enough for inclusion. As far as automatic notability by virtue of verifiability by a single source I guess it would depend on the situation. One news report stating that a prominent live person was caught in a compromising position would certainly require more stringent proof, whereas an album being listed on a Billboard chart, the one listing would suffice.

11. What do you view as the single greatest threat to Wikipedia's long term future? What, if anything, do you think should be done about this?

A: The non-verification of libelous material could lead the demise of this project. All editors need to take the importance of verification seriously and remove any information that is not verifiable particularly if it relates to living people.

Questions from CIreland

12. It is a common occurrence at WP:RFPP that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?

A: I would revert to the version that existed prior to the edit war.

13. Please explain how this image satisfies or does not satisfy criterion 1 of the the non-free content criteria.

A: It does not and should be removed, and yes I put it there, but it was after only about a month of editing. There have been no similar instances since.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

14. Why are you not contactable by email? PS I am willing to email you the special unwatched list if you had an email!

A: I have decided that I do not want to be contacted by email for reasons that I do not wish to share, I hope that will be respected. Thank you very much for the offer though.

• I can now be reached by email. J04n(talk page) 11:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from A Nobody

15. What are you thoughts on this discussion?

A: My thought is that an AfD should have its seven-day lifespan before it is merged. Once it is merged it is turned to a redirect and all savable content is moved to the merged page. The full time should be allowed to permit other editors to find the article and possibly find reason that it should remain an article. Since this is the final day of this process I want to take a second to thank everyone for your kind words and constructive criticism particularly Dekimasu for nominating me. J04n(talk page) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for J04n: J04n (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for J04n can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/J04n before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page by Dekimasu. Javért  |  ^Talk 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• You're going to be disappointed about the limited functionality in Special:Unwatched Pages. Protonk (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, what he said. That's the first thing I looked at when I passed RfA, and was quite disappointed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• My answers to your questions obviously sent up some red flags to some of you. In my defense I wasn't seeking to be an admin and never researched it before yesterday. I answered the questions honestly and with what information I had. If you think I'm not ready that's fine, I enjoy editing as I've been and will continue to do so. I must say though that I won't act without careful consideration and research. Thanks J04n(talk page) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to note that, since we have 3 support !votes already based mostly on his edit count, that it appears the vast majority of his edits, perhaps over 90%probably around 85-90%, were made with AWB, and that most of them escaped detection as AWB by Soxred's edit counter because for a long time he didn't include an AWB notice in his edit summary. His "true" non-automated edit count may be much lower than it appears, though still within the lower range of the edit counts of some recently promoted admins. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through your last 7000 edits (from August 6 to September 5, a period of 30 days) and sifted out all the ones whose edit summaries end in "you can help!" or "(AWB)", as well as a small number of others with the edit summary "(fixed my mistake)" which represent the undoing of a previous AWB edit. With these screened out, I am left with 241 apparent non-automated edits. This means that 96.5% of your edits in the last month come from AWB (including the small number of manual reversions of AWB edits). If this trend were assumed to represent your edit history from the beginning, it would leave you with only about 1200 manual edits for the whole time you've been registered. However, I will not make that claim because I haven't gone through your whole edit history, but rather only the last month, and because it's possible that I could be slightly off count even for the last month because of deleted edits and possible flaws in the method I used to count. (scrubbed per more thorough look described below)

240 manual edits per month is not bad ... it's about the same number I made in July, for example ... I want to make clear that I am not trying to sink this RfA (I !voted Neutral, not Oppose); I am only clearing up some of the misunderstandings I see coming from the people who are supporting primarily based on his edit count. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation-related edits should not be considered "automated" as far as I'm concerned. Each fix represents a choice on the part of the user, not approving something changed by a bot, so they represent real interaction with a large number of articles. Dekimasuよ! 17:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I've made a quick look through J04n's edit history going back to the beginning and it does seem that up until March 17 he wasn't using AWB at all, and thus the high edit counts for those months are "real". (I do personally consider AWB automated, though, no matter what it's used for; I've made 1000 or so edits with AWB myself and they've taught me nothing about the actual content of the articles I edited.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Far less than 10% of my edits are automated, probably less than 1%, I did not get AWB until August 24, 2 weeks ago. You can help" is cut and pasted into the edit summary line from WP:DPL, hardly an automated edit. J04n(talk page) 21:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 8.95% of your edits are automated. See this. Theleftorium 23:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for incorrectly assuming that the dab page repair edits were all AWB. Nevertheless, the point I was making still stands fully as much as before, because while making 500 edits like this does show an impressive dedication to getting work done, I don't think it gives you a very well rounded understanding of the articles you've edited. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the nom support - I've seen this guy around and wow... he should really have a mop. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - I've seen excellent work from J04n on various articles. He's a trustworthy, dedicated and sensible Wikipedian who does a lot of excellent behind-the-scenes work too - good admin material. ~ mazca ^talk 23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think the day will ever come where I'll oppose over any answer to the cool-down blocks question. His answer is perfectly correct from a common-sense point of view - a cooldown block is entirely appropriate if they are editing disruptively as a result. It honestly saddens me that people use that question simply as a trick. ~ mazca ^talk 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Strong support – would make very good use of the tools on his rounds. He deals with several hundred articles a day and some of them could do with some G6 work. A maintenance admin after my own heart, and knows how to write, too. Was hoping to be #1 by the way as I have been watching this all night. – B.hotep •talk• 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per nom and B.hotep. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - J04n is a fantastic content contributor and all I want to see is some admin related experience which he(?) has from contributing to various deletion discussions. I'm sure he'll be fine with the buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
6. I trust Dekimasu to pick out the right people for adminship. @harej 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support I must confess to having never heard of you. However, after a very brief perusal of your contributions as well as noting that you have the support of several editors that I trust without question, I come to the conclusion to support your RfA. Good luck! Javért  |  ^Talk 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Looks good and meets my Criteria--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Support per excellent taste in music. He's done some excellent work keeping this place clean, and we'd all benefit from him having the bit. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support per Bubba, Dylan and Mazca. Mop away! The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. An analysis reveals the candidate to be qualified by my criteria. —Matheuler 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. While the J04n has very few projectspace contributions, he does not plan to work in an administrative area requiring such experience. He also appears to be intelligent and clueful. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support Looks great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

13. 35K edits, friendly and competent. - Dank (push to talk) 02:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Support, no reason to oppose. Lack of familiarity with some areas of the wiki is countered by a willingness to learn before acting, as his answer to Q4 indicates. Ironholds (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per Ironholds. High quality contributor, trustworthy and deserving of adminship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    I acknowledge the concerns raised by the opposition, and while I do agree with them to an extent, I don't think it's enough of an issue to withdraw my support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

16. Support as nominator. Dekimasuよ! 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support Whoa. 35000 edits. That's... good, to say the least. As long as he reads all the policies before acting on them, this should be a plus. (Plus the magic 8-ball told me to vote support) [flaminglawyer] 03:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Moving to neutral. [flaminglawyer] 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting retracted support. — neuro^(talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support - candidiate is qualified, and really should have the mop.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 04:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Changed to Oppose--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

17. Support. He appears to be a solid, trustworthy contributor. Majoreditor (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
18. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 07:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. No reasons why not. AtheWeatherman 09:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Solid. ceranthor 10:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Moved to neutral. ceranthor 12:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

20. Support - Based on level of contributions I think the user would be of benefit to the project with the mop  Francium12  13:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Just for a change I'm going to make a comment about a "support" vote rather than the usual badgering of "oppose" voters. Based on the level of contributions, the user is a benefit to the project. That is true. "With the mop" is not. He is rarely, if ever, in admin areas of the project, so how can you judge by his article edits that he will be good with the mops? Alan16 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Granted 97% of his edits are to articles but given his high edit count (10x higher than yours!) I'm willing to accept he will get involed with the powers in the area he has expressed working in. I'm not bothered that the user doesnt know about the distinction between banning and blocking as he hasn't expressed and interest in working there. I imagine this user will largely continue to create content with the admin powers - something some admins become a little to removed from  Francium12  22:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    My edit count is irrelevant, and as I've said in my oppose vote, I have no problem with his article edits. However this "area" of interest you talk about is, as far as I can tell, fixing disambigs on fully protected pages. Now I may be wrong on this, but that surely can't be a long list of articles. An admin needs to be able to do more than that, and he has no experience in any of the other admin areas. He is a good article contributor to Wikipedia, but does not have the experience necessary to judge how good an admin he'd be. Alan16 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

21. Support You've done a lot of good for the pedia, have a clean block log and your question answers are refreshing (though if there are any admin wannabees reading this I would strongly advise reading the admin reading list before starting an RFA). I think you have the sense to only use tools after reading the relevant policies and would strongly suggest that after this RFA you gen up on the relevant parts of new admin school before using the tools. Good Luck ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
22. Support He is ready to be an admin, per nom and the above. Airplaneman ^talk 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    34k edits in 9 months?? Great user, deserves the mop. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

23. Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards by having never been even accidentally blocked, being a Good Article contributor, being a fan of ABC's Lost (shows good taste), having User:J04n/Barnstars (impressed fellow eidtors), and also for User:J04n/Articles created (here to build an encyclopedia, i.e. right priorities). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    With all due respect, I don't see what good taste in television programs has to do with adminship. If that bit was intended to be humorous, then my apologies. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I suppose it just shows that I agree with the candidate on more than just the usual areas I look for, and seriously, though, that is a good show.  :) I suppose I just do not want to say the same thing for every candidate and if I ever have anything positive to say about anyone whether it seems immediately relevant or not, I would rather say it, because if nothing else, I believe in encouraging people and making them feel appreciated as much as I can. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

24. Due to the answers to questions 4 and 9, and I'll explain why: I especially like the answer to question 4 because it shows that if J04n is unsure about something, he'll look it up (or ask someone else about it) rather than do something silly; and the answer to question 9 is how many people seem (to me anyway) to feel about AOR. With the answer to question 6, most blocks are "cool down blocks" anyway, so that's just a matter of terminology. In addition, these answers show that J04n is not an RfA regular, and his answers are more "genuine", rather than reworded versions of other people's answers. With "need" of the tools, nobody really "needs" them, and if someone is trustworthy, then there is no reason not to give adminship to them (I thought that "need" and "cool down blocks" had been discussed so many times...). Just take it slow, and if you need help, ask a more experienced editor for help. Acalamari 18:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    In case of Q4, he took it up, and gave a wrong answer. If you like that, I've nothing to say. AdjustShift (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for your comment, I'll explain; the answer is short, but nonetheless correct: "a block prevents an editor from editing anything in Wikipedia" is exactly what a block is: if I am blocked, I cannot technically edit anything on Wikipedia (with the exception of my talk page, but that goes without saying). "a ban prohibits editing some specific part or parts of Wikipedia." is also correct: if I am banned from editing a certain area, say RfA and its talk page, then while I am technically capable of editing those pages, I am not allowed to by some sort of ruling (be it ArbCom or the community), and my ban can either be enforced by reverting my edit and/or blocking me. While the answer was short and didn't elaborate much (i.e. he didn't mention that bans are enforced by blocks), it is correct in basic form...unless of course the definitions of a block and a ban have changed. Acalamari 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Acalamari, I've a high regard for you, but I've to disagree with you on this particular issue. A blocked user is generally allowed to edit his/her talk page, and that makes some difference. The block editor can make an unblock request on his/her talkpage. An editor is blocked for one month. He makes unblock requests, but multiple admins deny the requests. He can post useful materials about an article on his talkpage. They can be inserted into the article by another editor. The ability of a block user to edit his/her talk page may not make a huge difference, but it still makes some difference. "A ban prohibits editing some specific part or parts of Wikipedia" is pretty incomplete because J04n didn't mention anything about sitebans. His answer indicates that he has a vague understanding about the blocking and banning policies, but an admin should have a solid understanding about these two policies. He is not ready for adminship yet. AdjustShift (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    I agree with you both. Acalamari and I have been admins for roughly the same period, and we both seem to have a pretty good feel for the idea that blocks and bans are both pretty vacuous things. The application of both changes over time, and the difference between them is really pretty meaningless. Adjust Shift is presenting a very good technical application of the two. In order to be a well functioning admin, you should understand both. However, over time, the only thing that really matters is that you understand the philosophical concept of the two, because it is impossible to acually prevent someone from editing Wikipedia. We only have the ability to prevent some people from editing some articles some of the time, and this is done through different levels of page protection. I've blocked somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 usernames. However, I bet I've blocked nowhere near 1000 people. I've even had a running game of cat and mouse with the various incarnations of Shuppiluliuma for two years in articles related to Turkey, at one time actually placing a range block on a sizeable portion of northern Italy. While this prevented a number of Italians from editing Wikipedia, it did not prevent Shuppiluliuma from editing. J04n will be a fine admin, but just needs to take a little time familiarizing himself with what he's getting himself into first. The only effective method for dealing with contentiously disruptive editors is to protect a page, hand out cool down blocks, unprotect the page when the short term blocks expire, and then topic ban anyone who acts up again, and back those bans up with blocks. If the trouble persists, lock the page down for admins-only for an extended duration (and thus prevent that page from benefiting from the entire purpose of Wikipedia). You will not find that in any policy, because that is the last way we are advised to deal with situations as admins. However, in time this ends up being how most of us deal with situations because we need to use the mop in the manner that most effectively gives the vast majority of editors the freedom to constructively contribute in peace, which is our ultimate purpose. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    Well said Hiberniantears but that comment is not coherent with your oppose. The letter of the policy is more often than not at odds with our experience of what works best. That's why all admins learn on the job, regardless of how often they've read the various policies related to admin tools. You don't seem to question J04n's judgement or even understanding of the spirit of the law: the only advice you give him is to read more policies despite having just argued that their relevance is limited. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    Yes... Being an admin does tend to make one slightly incoherent. :-) To clarify, I don't really want him to just read more policies, so much as study the subtle nuances of functioning in the grey areas that adminship requires. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

25. Support - I'm satisfied with the answers to the questions. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. J04n seems to be a good contributor who is committed to improving Wikipedia and would make effective use of the admin tools. Nothing in the Oppose section so far convinces me he wouldn't make a good admin; in particular, I don't agree with the suggestion that would-be admins should spend their time observing RFA and memorising the 'correct' answers to trick questions. RFA is supposed to be about assessing whether someone has the clue to use the admin tools correctly, not some kind of secret ritual for keeping out outsiders. Robofish (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - Satisfied the user will become and good admin. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Support you significantly improved the article for the greatest heavy metal band of all time? I cannot oppose for that.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. There are valid criticisms about lack of experience in areas related to using the extra buttons, however in all honesty, I think you'll be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
30. This look like a pretty good user to me, so I support. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. - Strong Support - I am concerned about Fair Play. J04n seems to be a good contributor who is committed to improving Wikipedia and would make effective use of the admin tools.I don't agree with the suggestion that would-be admins should spend their time observing RFA and memorising the 'correct' answers to trick questions.

    Welcoming has been around to help new editors take their first unsteady steps on Wikipedia.

    Constructive Edits (does not spend all his time reverting or deleting edits and he takes the time to improve poor edits) And taking time to help and clearly communicate with editors is a big plus. J04n is kind and considerate towards others, acts reasonable, doesn't cause drama, and has sufficient experience. A sensible and dedicated Editor who interacts well with others.

    Good Luck and Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    I would hardly consider most of them to be 'trick questions' in any way, shape or form. They are standard things which you should simply know as an admin. — neuro^(talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

    See (33 Strong Support Shame on you guys!) - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

32. Weak support. Seems good, though I don't like e-mail not being enabled. Wizardman 01:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    I don't like e-mail not being enabled either. Ret.Prof (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Got your email. I do believe you represent the very best of Wikipedia. Hope you have a thick skin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Strong Support - Shame on you guys! Just because he doesn't give a textbook answer to Q4, there's pile-on opposes. So... there's no obvious reason to oppose. Also like the honesty with Q4. If you don't know something, look it up! No one's perfect. Hell, I recently learned what WP:MOBY is. Glacier Wolf 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    WP:MOBY isn't Wikipedia policy. J04n has a sketchy knowledge of basic policies and has little to no experience in any of the admin areas on Wikipedia. Hell, you didn't know what WP:MOBY is until recently... But then again you rarely do more than 100 edits a month and you're not an admin, so I'd not expect you to have a complete grasp of policies. I would expect a prospective admin to. Alan16 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    OK, in order, I knew that wasn't policy. I wanted to give an example that was recent, and that was the only thing that came to mind. I support a little more lightly than anyone else. And, for fuck's sake, how the hell did my edit count get involved in this? We're talking about J04n, not me. And I don't intend to throw my name into the RfA gauntlet. Glacier Wolf 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

    Forget it. I'm just abstaining. Please see talk page for details. Glacier Wolf 01:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    Hey, when you are editing a page, there is the following warning: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly". It isn't the exact comment for this situation, but the sentiment is the same. You post something, people mght disagree. You want to abstain? Go ahead. _{Does this mean I won?} Alan16 (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

    No, Alan You Did Not Win. Both you and Glacier lost. Certainly "And, for fuck's sake, how the hell . . ." is not a polite response to your comments on her edit count. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. This discussion on the Knowledge requirement for administrators is important, as it may set a precedent. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you, Ret.Prof, for being offended on my behalf. The bit you quoted wasn't particularly polite, but it wasn't really that uncivil either, and it certainly didn't bother me. We disagreed, but it was civil enough, and there was really no need for you to post a reply - it was finished, complete, done. We'd moved on. Let's be honest, mine and Glacier's wee back and forth isn't going to set any sort of precedent. What may is that this RfA is going to fail because the user has not had enough experience in admin areas - but really this is what a lot of people look for anyway, so in fact there is no danger of a precedent being set. Please don't reply. As I've said, we're finished, me and Glacier have made up and now I'm sure we'll now go back to editing constructively - perhaps you could join us. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

    Actually Alan, she is not back back to editing as she quit Wikipedia Sept.9th! Secondly, it was at your behavior that I took offence. Let's put this behind us. Happy Editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    And you expect me to be what? Saddened? Well, sadly, I'm not - if you can't stand being disagreed with then Wikipedia is probably not going to be the place for you. So you took offence at my behaviour? Oh well. Let's go "try to improve all articles". Whoever said that is obviously a wise man, and wouldn't make disruptive edits such as: this, this, and this. Let's stop this now, because I'm fed up with your sound-bites and we're going off topic. Alan16 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

33. Strong support Has definitely shown that he's a responsible, clueful editor. As for the answer to Q4, Newyorkbrad's comment below should be required reading for anyone who finds it a compelling reason to oppose. Moreover the distinction is irrelevant for the vast majority of admins: if you don't hang out at ANI, there's simply no reason to care. Adminship is not rocket science and we're doing a disservice to the project by pretending otherwise. Great candidate, clearly a net positive. I know that no bureaucrat will close this RfA as successful but this is really an instance where "not a vote" should be invoked. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Support: RfA is about trust, and in my book, the answer to Q4 is a big plus: A candidate who candidly admits to not knowing everything and then provides an answer that works for all practical purposes is clearly trustworthy. I fail to understand how this can be held against him. — Sebastian 08:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
35. Support per user A Nobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Support (Moral at this point). In recognition of your valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. decltype (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Support: Some of the opposes are quite sound, but others show quite clearly how overrated adminship is. As Pascal.Tesson said, it's not rocket science. This editor has shown more than enough dedication and can be trusted to perform well. Anybody with half a brain will understand that if they are going to work in a specific area they need to know how things should be done there. I'm pretty certain this editor has much more than half a brain, which means he will familiarize himself with any policy that will be needed for his admin activities. I don't see any major mess-up in his editing history, and have no reason to beleieve he will run wild when he gets the admin tools. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Comment to Closing Bureaucrat: This is an unusual case where the overwhelming consensus is that the candidate would be of great benefit to Wikipedia. Even his strongest opponent Alan16 states "Oppose – J04n seems like a reasonable editor who makes good article edits. On that front I have no problems." Where there is no consensus is on whether or not he has enough admin. related experience. A very slight majority agree with Pascal.Tesson who explains that Adminship is not rocket science and we're doing a disservice to the project by pretending otherwise. Great candidate, clearly a net positive. On the other hand a substantial minority do not believe he has the experience or knowledge to be able to do the job that will be required of him. I do believe that this is an important decision where "not a vote" should be invoked. Ret.Prof (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Thousands of disambig edits, and content creation are all I see. Your edits don't give me much opportunity to judge your knowledge of policy. ƒ(Δ)² 08:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose Admins should know basic policies, and per A6 and the opening of A9, this leads me to believe that the candidate doesn't have the knowledge required to be trusted with the tools. Also, A8 doesn't seem to relate to Q8 at all. My strong comes from A7, however in that the candidate flatly states that he will block anyone that repeats vandalicious behavior. ArcAngel (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Well, we do block editors who vandalize repeatedly. I wouldn't have interpreted that answer in the same way, though. "Considering this Blocking policy would be the most important" sounds to me like J04n would give thought to the potential effects of each block. Dekimasuよ! 14:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   He actually says: "Blocking of repeat offenders is the responsibility of the admin, so considering this Blocking policy would be the most important." - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - per J04n's answers to questions. His answers to multiple questions are troubling. His answer to Q4, for example, is I have to admit that I just read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK because I did not know that a difference existed. To answer the question; a block prevents an editor from editing anything in Wikipedia and a ban prohibits editing some specific part or parts of Wikipedia. That's not the right answer. Anyone can check my RFA to get the right answer. J04n, I think you should analyze the WP policies, and re-apply for adminship after sometime. AdjustShift (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't usually "badger the opposers" (and I have no particular reason to do so in this instance, because I don't recall ever having come across the candidate before reviewing this RfA), but I feel compelled to jump in here, because in light of recent developments (and through no fault of AdjustShift), this oppose is a bit unfair. Historically, the expected answer to the "block vs. ban" question was along the lines that a block was a technical limitation on editing by action of a single administrator, while a ban reflected either a community consensus or an Arbitration Committee decision. However, more recently, and as reflected in the first paragraph of the banning policy, the word "ban" has come to frequently refer to topic bans or pagebans, as opposed to full-fledged sitebans, whereas blocking for individual pages or topics. In that light, the candidate's answer seems a reasonable one. Moreover, a recent practice has developed whereby some administrators have, for cause and on their own initiative but without seeking consensus, advised users that they are prohibited from editing on a particular topic or page, and these limitations are also usually referred to as topic bans or pagebans. This practice is not reflected in current policy as written, and it has become apparent in a pending arbitration case that even the arbitrators are divided on whether it is permissible or not; as a result, the ArbCom is about to pass a remedy urging that a community discussion be convened to clarify the policy. In this light, I recently predicted while voting on the case that the semantics of "block" versus "ban" are now a bit tangled and were going to cause confusion. I don't think it is fair or appropriate to hold this ambiguity or need for clarification against this or any RfA candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   NYB, I've read multiple comments of yours and most of them are accurate, but the above one is one of your inaccurate comments. However, more recently, and as reflected in the first paragraph of the banning policy, the word "ban" has come to frequently refer to topic bans or pagebans, as opposed to full-fledged sitebans, whereas blocking for individual pages or topics. In that light, the candidate's answer seems a reasonable one. The banning policy page is not all about the first paragraph; a ban can be a topic ban or a page ban or a siteban. You, as an ArbCom, may have frequently referred to "ban" as a topic ban or a page ban; but, I, as an admin, have frequently referred to "ban" as a siteban. If someone has topic banned multiple people, he may think of "topic ban" when he sees the word "ban"; but, if someone has indef blocked multiple people which resulted in ban, he may think of "siteban" when he sees the word "ban". Your comment that J04n's answer seems a reasonable one is a pretty inaccurate comment. Please analyze the answer. ... To answer the question; a block prevents an editor from editing anything in Wikipedia and a ban prohibits editing some specific part or parts of Wikipedia. "A block prevents an editor from editing anything in Wikipedia" is highly inaccurate. A blocked user is generally allowed to edit his/her talk page. "A ban prohibits editing some specific part or parts of Wikipedia" is pretty incomplete. J04n mentioned nothing about siteban in his/her answer. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Quick note. In this instance it isn't a case of semantics and hence a wrong answer, it is that he did not know the policies existed. Alan16 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   It's unfair to say that he did not know the policies existed. He did not know that the distinction existed which isn't entirely surprising since bans are so rare and essentially irrelevant if you're not on ArbCom. For instance, can you provide an example of a situation where an admin who misunderstands that distinction will make a decision that hurts the project in any way? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

   We're just talking semantics here. He did not know there was a difference, hence he did not know of at least once of them. And I don't think I need to provide an example. He may well never have to use them, but I'd expect an admin to understand the relevant policies. This is irrelevant though, as I think the candidate has several other flaws which I have outlined in a few places on here. Alan16 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Unfortunate Oppose for now. Knowing ban vs block before being nom'd is essential. Recommend hanging around some basic admin functional areas. Good article development, appears some use of automation. In other words ... almost there, so keep it up. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I thought the answer was refreshingly honest compared to some of the "politicians answers" that are sometimes provided.  Francium12  16:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Honesty is a good quality, but it does no negate that he was completely unaware of some policies. Alan16 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Basic knowledge, such as the difference between ban and block, is needed if you want to be an admin. When we promote someone with little knowledge about the WP policies, he/she may commit blunders such as unblocking a banned user. Even an unintentional blunder by an admin can do a huge damage. An admin with little knowledge about the WP policies is not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. AdjustShift (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose – J04n seems like a reasonable editor who makes good article edits. On that front I have no problems. What just strikes me is that you don't need the admin tools for what you do, and have no idea what you'd do were you to get them. I'd have no problem supporting you if you gained some experience at WP:FAC, WP:AFD, or WP:ANI. Alan16 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose. The answer to question six is simply unacceptable. It's a trick question, and you clearly didn't do the research needed to properly answer a question here, the kind of research an admin needs to do before taking action. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose Checking your contribs, about 90%many of your edits are automated. That makes your so called "normal" count stand at 3k. While this is perfectly Ok, I'm not too impressed by your answers to support you. I don't see much experience in AFD/ANI or GA/FAC. Sorry, but I can't support you atm. Please come back later. Pmlineditor  Talk 17:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Striking out !votes. I'm not sure about this. I'll come back and !vote later
8. I think maybe a little more research is needed with the policies you'll be heavily involved in before you start enforcing them. I do think that with that research you'll be a great administrator.  GARDEN  20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose I was actually planning on supporting before I saw the answers to the questions. Incorrect answers for two very important questions are what most concern me. I suggest reading the admin-related policies and getting involved in the Wikipedia namespace more if this fails and you wish to run again. I think the lack of edits outside the article namespace is the cause of your lack of knowledge of admin-related policies. Timmeh (review me) 20:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Weak Oppose I think I understand the rationale behind the analogy of the janitor and a mop, but I don't see it as the best analogy. I see a better analogy as a referee. Many people feel that it is important to have played the sport to be a good referee; there are referees who have never played the sport, and some are quite good at it, but you start with a strike against you. I see the candidate as an excellent contributor to the encyclopedia—but to abuse my analogy, somewhat of a special teams player. Not intended to be a negative, I'm a big fan of special teams players, but one doesn't assume a complete understanding of all facets of the game by such a player. One doesn't even assume this of other positions—I think Tom Brady is an excellent quarterback, but I don't know if he would automatically be a good referee. I am fairly confident if you told him he had to ref a game later in the season, he would start paying attention to things in a different way than he would as a player. I think we've done a bit of a disservice to the candidate by nominating for the position without giving a proper heads up. The position absolutely (and appropriately) requires a solid understanding of a wide range of policies, some of which you may not have encountered as a editor. The position also requires a mastering of jargon, so that certain terms have special meaning, such as cool-down blocks. I see nothing wrong with blocking a disruptive editor, but that isn't exactly an example of a cool-down block. I I'm confident that if candidate is interested in the position, and spends a few moths reviewing policy, that the support level will be extremely high. I know, I took a lot of bytes to say come back in three months.--SPhilbrickT 20:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Per Soap, Sphilbrick, Bjwilkins. Mix those three together equally and you pretty much land exactly where I am. NW (Talk) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Admins need to know how to research and apply policies, guidelines, and common practice. They need to be able to know where to look for things, which this user didn't do in his RfA answers (see A6 about cool down blocks). Also, I'd expect an editor to know about blocks and bans before getting the tools. I could definitely support in the future, however. The candidate can improve with more experience and review of policies. hmwitht 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose Would like to see more edits in the Wikipedia namespace (other than Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links). -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose - The answers to the questions are at best terse, and at worst entirely wrong. Uncomfortable with supporting this request at the current time. — neuro^(talk) 11:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Reluctant Oppose, your work looks good, and I've no doubt that you only have the very best of intentions. However, you have made some pretty elementary errors in the questions posed to you above, which gives me pause. With a bit more practice and experience in the administrative side of the project, I'm sure you'll make an exemplary admin in the near future though! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC).
16. Oppose - Due to overt lack of experience and activity in the project space outside of DA pages. Makes it very difficult for me to assess admin-related abilities. Sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
17. (Moved from neutral) Oppose Great overall user and editor, great edits, and seems trustworthy, but the answer to Q4 [1] is concerning. It shows that until the candidate was asked that question, they were not even knowledgeable of the difference between two key Wikipedia policies. Combined with minute concerns over lack of extensive Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and User talk edits, as well as a bad gut feeling over the more recent answers (up to 14) moves me into oppose. Sorry. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Opppose not know policies enough. — JoJo • Talk • 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per Adjust Shift and HMWITH. You are definitely on the right path, and have a proven record as a great contributor. I nearly supported because I see in your answers that while you are unfamiliar with many of the admin nooks and crannies, you are clearly not someone who would abuse the mop, and you show a willingness to learn the correct answers. To be perfectly honest, if you spend the next month reading up on policy, I would very willingly support you in another RfA. I do not like opposing good users who will be good admins. You will be a good admin, and just need to get up to speed on the admin rights and responsibilities. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose, questions show a lack of familiarity with current policies and feelings on major admin issues. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose - answers to questions show that the candidate does not know policy as well as an admin should.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
22. Unwilling Oppose I originally supported you, but your answers show a lack of knowledge in certain areas. Better luck next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose Per answers to questions, and per Neuro.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    Please See (33 Strong Support Shame on you guys!) above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    I fail to see your point. Support No. 33 makes little sense. Alan16 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

    Just because you see little sense in it doesn't mean others see it the same way. Please don't try to undervalue another editor's good faith !vote based only on your opinion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, because I am the one undervaluing a vote with phrase like "shame on you". Wait. That wasn't me... And what is this apart from a collection of opinions? This pseudo-diplomacy doesn't suit you. Alan16 (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    That doesn't justify you replying in a same or worse way. And wow, "pseudo-diplomacy"... thanks for the AGF. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Are you seriously saying that you think "Support No. 33 makes little sense" is an uncivil way of responding? And the "pseudo-diplomacy" comment was about you commenting when it was completely unnecessary. I don't know what you thought commenting on a discussion which had to all intents and purposes finished would accomplish, apart from trying to sound like you were being diplomatic. Planing your own RfA soon? Alan16 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Actually Alan, Chamal is an Admin and a fine one at that. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

    Not to get dragged into this or anything, but admins don't entail any more authority than a typical user.... 67.150.50.17 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose You're missing some very fundamental policy knowledge, and I have other concerns based on your answers. An RfA candidate should know the difference between bans and blocks, and that cool-down blocks are never used (yes, CPB does say that disruptive users can be blocked, but they should be getting blocked because they're disruptive, not because they need a "time out"). Several of your answers (#13 in particular) are lacking in detail, which doesn't give me any additional confidence that you know your stuff. Lastly, while this doesn't factor much into my oppose, I do understand your reluctance to be contacted by email, particularly a personal address. What you may want to consider doing is setting up a throw-away gmail account specifically for receiving and responding to Wikipedia emails. I do this, as do many other administrators, and it significantly reduces your chances of being outed or attacked by email. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose J04n shows a dedication to Wikipedia and a lot of positive traits (as outlined in the nomination statement). Unfortunately, the answers to several questions do not lead me to believe he has enough admin related experience at this time. If a future run at adminship is desired, I suggest both reading up on policy and hanging around admin related areas. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Uninspiring answers to the questions and a lack of demonstrable experience in admin-related areas leave me unable to support; this is clearly a valuable editor but there is nothing to say they would make a good administrator. If they are genuinely interested in contributing to the admin workload I would suggest taking a bigger interest in related areas of the project prior to accepting another nomination. Shereth 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose J04n is an admirable editor but seems to lack the knowledge expected out of a potential administrator. Whatever NYB says, answer 4 is incorrect and doesn't address the most important difference between a block and a ban (blocks can be made and removed by a single administrator, bans can't). Answer 6 is also incorrect, ironically shown by the link that J04n used to defend the answer. I think J04n isn't ready for RfA and was surprised to be nominated, so there shouldn't be any surprise that he wasn't prepared. If he has a true interest in being an admin then some familiarity with admin responsibilities then I might support a future nomination. -- Atama頭 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose Frankly, I'm a little shocked by the attitude some editors have that it's okay for an admin to be grossly ignorant of basic policy. I will be more than willing to support in the future when more knowledge is demonstrated regarding being an admin. Some on-the-job training is expected but there must be a basic understanding of the rules and demonstration of good decision-making and dispute-settling abilities prior to receiving my support. Not now. Drawn Some (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose, good contributions but could use more experience and familiarity in areas of policy. Would be willing to support at a later date after some more experience in these areas. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. My only concern is that you don't appear to have too much need for the tools. Is there any "big" area that you would like to work with? AFD, CSD, RFPP, AIV, perhaps? (Feel free to reply, of course it won't be considered "badgering" when my !vote is phrased as a question.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I don't understand how 'need' for the tools comes into it. Nobody 'needs' the tools. Nobody is going to die tomorrow because they suddenly didn't have the tools. If 'need' should be seen to be 'want', then how does that come into it? If 'need' should not be seen as 'want', what should it be seen as? — neuro^(talk) 07:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   "Need" may not be all that important, but having experience in an area where they would be used is. He is lacking both "need" and "experience" which negate his good article edits in this instance. Alan16 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry I might have not used the correct word; but I essentially meant what Alan is saying. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Leaning towards support: Great overall user and editor, great edits, and seems trustworthy, but the answer to Q4 [2] is concerning. It shows that until the candidate was asked that question, they were not even knowledgeable of the difference between two key Wikipedia policies. This combined, with minute concerns over lack of extensive Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and User talk edits, moves me into neutral. Will update this later per further responses to questions. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   _{Moved to oppose per recent answers. Sorry. --Patar knight - ^chat/contributions 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)}

2. (moved from support) A basic understanding of basic policies is absolutely required for an admin, and I'm not sure you know all the basic policies. Mostly per A6. There's nothing really wrong with it fundamentally, but it's just too short for me to tell if you really understand it or not. ceranthor 12:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   Whoa, I obviously misread that. I'm leaning oppose: you are a very valuable contributor, but please try to gain some policy experience. ceranthor 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Question 4, 6, and 9 make me believe you don't know some of Wikipedia's basic policies. iMatthew ^talk at 15:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   I'm curious as to why you do not oppose the candidate. He does have good article edits but policies are a big must surely, and if you don't know them at all/well, surely you are not an appropriate candidate. Alan16 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   He isn't supporting, which obviously means lack of policy knowledge is a concern. The seriousness of this concern is a matter of opinion; generally, being neutral implies "you're good, but not good enough." Also the "appropriateness" is not for you alone to decide (one of the reasons why we have RfAs in the first place, and not a set of community standards). ƒ(Δ)² 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral because of poor answers to the questions, but I've gone through your talkpage archives (which, admittedly, are surprisingly thin for someone with 35K edits) and not seen you getting any warnings other than a few deletion notices. So I can conclude that you aren't the type to make rash decisions on sparse knowledge. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral, and review WP:ARL if you haven't. I'll be more than happy to support the next time around, but not now. –blurpeace ^(talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral I'm generally of the "admin is no big deal" school and favor giving it to all more or less trusted editors who want it, but this particular editor's answers to the questions suggest that this editor not only has little or no experience where admin areas are concerned, this editor has an aggressive lack of interest in policy and how admins are expected to behave. The ban/block question, the "cool-down" block option, etc., are all staples of RfA, and a basic amount of due diligence would have let the editor answer. Unless I get an indicator that this editor will take being an admin, and the responsibilities that come with it, seriously, I can't support. Ray^Talk 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral The same concern as above; the breadth of editing areas isn't all that wide. The lack of knowledge on the questions tell me that it's just a matter of a bit more education/reading and time... So probably support the next time around. Skier Dude (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral (from support) Eh... If you get voted onto the Admin Island, do read up on policies before enforcing them. I'm not going to support, but if the rest of the community is behind you, then I'm not going to oppose you either. Or even if the rest of the community isn't behind you. I'm gonna stay neutral. You do have a clear lack of policy understanding, though, and since most of your 35k edits seem to be (semi?)automated... You seem to have a positive, content-building mindset, but you just don't have experience. [flaminglawyer] 04:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral Cant suppurt per query 6. But I dont oppose either. I think this editor is promising though, so my neutral can be viewed as weak. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral: Basically the editors answers to the questions above were not answered to a high degree of sophistication which indicates among other things the editors lack of basic knowledge of the criteria expected by of all wikipedia admins. South Bay (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral A fine editor, but the hazy answers regarding admin policies doesn't inspire confidence. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral Oppose for now. It is important for an admin to be contactable. People often have something they would like to tell an admin in private. Putting your email on Wikipedia does not disclose it to any one, but does enable you to receive messages. Since this is an easy thing to fix, my vote could be reconsidered. However I am impressed by the amount of disambiguation you have done. It shows commitment. (I have tried this, and only spelling fixing seems more tedious). If you still want to take on the unwatched, you can email me, and tell me how I can send you the list. Vote reconsidered. Since responding to my concern it shows that the candidate can improve. It would have been a good idea to read the previous RfAs to get an idea of the questions and what is needed to be known to pass. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Per the concerns listed above. America69 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.